A Transportation Agreement between General Freight Services, Inc. and Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. appears as Exhibit A in a lawsuit between Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Fulfillment Service, Inc. and Coyote Logistics, LLC.
A Transportation Agreement between General Freight Services, Inc. and Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. appears as Exhibit A in a lawsuit between Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Fulfillment Service, Inc. and Coyote Logistics, LLC.
Last month, Renren Inc. (人人) filed a registration statement in preparation for its initial public offering of American depository shares (ADSs). I’ve indexed the Renren Inc. contracts from their security filings. Renren operates a social networking platform in China that some liken to Facebook, which is banned in China.
So, how will Renren get around the problems that plague Facebook? Take a look at the disclosures in Renren’s Form F-1. How frightening that “[s]ubstantially all of the content published on [Renren] is manually screened by employees” and prohibited content will be reported to the relevant governmental authority. I’ve bolded the really interesting portions below:
Regulations on Internet Content Services
National security considerations are an important factor in the regulation of internet content in China. The National People’s Congress, the PRC’s national legislature, has enacted laws with respect to maintaining the security of internet operations and internet content. According to these laws, as well as the Internet Measures, violators may be subject to penalties, including criminal sanctions, for internet content that:
- opposes the fundamental principles stated in the PRC constitution;
- compromises national security, divulges state secrets, subverts state power or damages national unity;
- harms the dignity or interests of the state;
- incites ethnic hatred or racial discrimination or damages inter-ethnic unity;
- undermines the PRC’s religious policy or propagates heretical teachings or feudal superstitions;
- disseminates rumors, disturbs social order or disrupts social stability;
- disseminates obscenity or pornography, encourages gambling, violence, murder or fear or incites the commission of a crime;
- insults or slanders a third party or infringes upon the lawful rights and interests of a third party; or
- is otherwise prohibited by law or administrative regulations.
ICP service operators are required to monitor their websites. They may not post or disseminate any content that falls within these prohibited categories and must remove any such content from their websites. The PRC government may shut down the websites of ICP license holders that violate any of the above-mentioned content restrictions, order them to suspend their operations, or revoke their ICP licenses.
To comply with these PRC laws and regulations, we have adopted internal procedures to monitor content displayed on our website, including a team of employees dedicated to screening and monitoring content uploaded on our website and removing inappropriate or infringing content. However, due to the large amount of user uploaded content, we may not be able to identify all videos, photos or other content that may violate relevant laws and regulations.
To the extent that PRC regulatory authorities find any content displayed on or through our websites objectionable, they may require us to limit or eliminate the dissemination or availability of such content on our websites or impose penalties, including the revocation of our operating licenses or the suspension or shutdown of our online operations. In addition, the costs of compliance with these regulations may increase as the volume of content and users on our website increases. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business and Industry—Content posted or displayed on our websites may be found objectionable by PRC regulatory authorities and may subject us to penalties and other administrative actions.”
Regulations on Information Security and Censorship
Internet content in China is also regulated and restricted from a State security standpoint. The National People’s Congress, China’s national legislative body, enacted a law on December 28, 2000, as amended on August 28, 2009, that makes it unlawful to: (i) gain improper entry into a computer or system of strategic importance; (ii) disseminate politically disruptive information; (iii) leak State secrets; (iv) spread false commercial information; or (v) infringe intellectual property rights.
The Ministry of Public Security has promulgated measures on December 16, 1997 that prohibit the use of the internet in ways which, among other things, result in a leakage of State secrets or the distribution of socially destabilizing content. Socially destabilizing content includes any content that incites defiance or violations of PRC laws or regulations or subversion of the PRC government or its political system, spreads socially disruptive rumors or involves cult activities, superstition, obscenities, pornography, gambling or violence. State secrets are defined broadly to include information concerning PRC national defense, state affairs and other matters as determined by the PRC authorities.
On December 13, 2005, the Ministry of Public Security promulgated Provisions on Technological Measures for Internet Security Protection, or the Internet Protection Measures. The Internet Protection Measures require all ICP operators to keep records of certain information about its users (including user registration information, log-in and log-out time, IP address, content and time of posts by users) for at least 60 days and submit the above information as required by laws and regulations. The ICP operators must regularly update information security and censorship systems for their websites with local public security authorities, and must also report any public dissemination of prohibited content. If an ICP operator violates these measures, the PRC government may revoke its ICP license and shut down its websites.
In addition, the State Secrecy Bureau has issued provisions authorizing the blocking of access to any website it deems to be leaking State secrets or failing to comply with the relevant legislation regarding the protection of State secrets.
As Qianxiang Tiancheng, Qianxiang Wangjing and Beijing Nuomi are all ICP operators, they are subject to the laws and regulations relating to information security. To comply with these laws and regulations, they have completed the mandatory security filing procedures with the local public security authorities, regularly update their information security and content-filtering systems with newly issued content restrictions, and maintain records of users’ information as required by the relevant laws and regulations. They have also taken measures to delete or remove links to content that to their knowledge contains information violating PRC laws and regulations. Substantially all of the content published on our websites is manually screened by employees who are dedicated to screening and monitoring content published on our website and removing prohibited content. All of the other content, primarily consisting of comments posted by users, is first screened by our filtering systems and content containing prohibited words or images is manually screened by our employees. We believe that with these measures in place, no prohibited content under PRC information security laws and regulations should have been publicly disseminated through our website in the past. However, due to the significant amount of content published on our website by our users on a daily basis, if any prohibited content is publicly disseminated in the future and we become aware of it, we will report it to the relevant governmental authority. We believe these measures are generally in compliance with the relevant laws and regulations.
If, despite the precautions, we fail to identify and prevent illegal or inappropriate content from being displayed on or through our websites, we may be subject to liability. In addition, these laws and regulations are subject to interpretation by the relevant authorities, and it may not be possible to determine in all cases the types of content that could result in liability. To the extent that PRC regulatory authorities find any content displayed on or through our websites objectionable, they may require us to limit or eliminate the dissemination or availability of such content or impose penalties, including the revocation of our operating licenses or the suspension or shutdown of our online operations. In addition, the costs of compliance with these regulations may increase as the volume of content and users on our website increases. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business and Industry—Content posted or displayed on our websites may be found objectionable by PRC regulatory authorities and may subject us to penalties and other administrative actions.”
The Lubrizol Corporation recently filed the Agreement and Plan of Merger between Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and itself. The agreement does contain a forum selection clause. So, do you think that the forum selection clause designates Nebraska where Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is located or Ohio where The Lubrizol Corporation is located?
Here’s the answer:
Each of the parties hereto (i) consents to submit itself to the personal jurisdiction of the state and federal courts of the State of Ohio in the event that any dispute arises out of this Agreement or any of the Transactions, (ii) agrees that it will not attempt to deny or defeat such personal jurisdiction by motion or other request for leave from any such court and (iii) agrees that it will not bring any action relating to this Agreement or any of the Transactions in any other court. Each of the parties hereto irrevocably and unconditionally waives (and agrees not to plead or claim) any objection to the laying of venue of any dispute arising out of this Agreement or any of the Transactions in the state and federal courts of the State of Ohio, or that any such dispute brought in any such court has been brought in an inconvenient forum.
If you are curious about how online marketing for home mortgage refinances work, check out this Marketing Agreement between Quicken Loans/Rock Financial and AzoogleAds.com, Inc., dated July 22, 2005. Quicken Loans was paying $14.00 per unique qualified submission for certain loans based on loan type, mortgage balance, credit ratings and state.
I was searching for “commercial in confidence” contracts using the full-text search on the EC EDGAR website. While the FAQs state that quotation marks may be used to search for an exact phrase, it also states: “The results set will not be limited only to that phrase, however, and may also include conceptually related phrases.” Unfortunately, the results were too cluttered with “conceptually related phrases” instead of actual contracts marked as commercial in confidence.
To find “commercial in confidence” contracts in securities filings, I ended up turning to Google: site:google.brand.edgar-online.com “commercial in confidence”.
Atari, Inc. has sued Zoo Publishing, Inc. d/b/a Zoo Games to recover the advances that it had paid for the manufacture and delivery of video games. The lawsuit includes a Sales Agreement dated October 24, 2008, between Zoo Publishing Inc. and Atari, Inc. under which Atari was granted the right to purchase video games directly from Zoo and sell such to wholesalers and retailers.
From time to time, third parties have misappropriated our data through website scraping, robots or other means and aggregated this data on their websites with data from other companies. In addition, “copycat” websites have misappropriated data on our network and attempted to imitate our brand or the functionality of our website. When we have become aware of such websites, we have employed technological or legal measures in an attempt to halt their operations. However, we may not be able to detect all such websites in a timely manner and, even if we could, technological and legal measures may be insufficient to stop their operations. In some cases, particularly in the case of websites operating outside of the United States, our available remedies may not be adequate to protect us against such websites. Regardless of whether we can successfully enforce our rights against these websites, any measures that we may take could require us to expend significant financial or other resources.
We depend in part on various Internet search engines, such as Google, Bing and Yahoo!, to direct a significant amount of traffic to our website. Our ability to maintain the number of visitors directed to our website is not entirely within our control. Our competitors’ search engine optimization, or SEO, efforts may result in their websites receiving a higher search result page ranking than ours, or Internet search engines could revise their methodologies in an attempt to improve their search results, which could adversely affect the placement of our search result page ranking. If search engine companies modify their search algorithms in ways that are detrimental to our new user growth or in ways that make it harder for our members to use our website, or if our competitors’ SEO efforts are more successful than ours, overall growth in our member base could slow, member engagement could decrease, and we could lose existing members. These modifications may be prompted by search engine companies entering the online professional networking market or aligning with competitors. Our website has experienced fluctuations in search result rankings in the past, and we anticipate similar fluctuations in the future. Any reduction in the number of users directed to our website would harm our business and operating results.
Also archived Molycorp contracts.
From Justia: License and Sponsorship Agreement between the Atlanta National League Baseball Club, Inc. and EZ-Media Inc., dated March 13, 2006.
Last November, Tudou Holdings Ltd. filed its F-1 registration statement, in preparation for its initial public offering of American depositary shares. Here are the contracts from its filings.
For a online video sharing business located in China, the first word that comes to mind is copyright. So, what the the F-1 say about the potential problems with copyright laws? I’ve highlighted the noteworthy portions.
We have been and expect we will continue to be exposed to intellectual property infringement and other claims, including claims based on content posted on our website, which could be time-consuming and costly to defend and may result in substantial damage awards and/or court orders that may prevent us from continuing to provide certain of our existing services.
Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to operate our business without infringing third-party rights, including third party intellectual property rights. Companies in the Internet, technology and media industries own, and are seeking to obtain, a large number of patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets, and they are frequently involved in litigation based on allegations of infringement or other violations of intellectual property rights or other related legal rights. There may be patents issued or pending that are held by others that cover significant aspects of our technologies, products, business methods or services. Our platform is open to Internet users for uploading video clips. As a result, content posted by our users may expose us to allegations by third parties of infringement of intellectual property rights, unfair competition, invasion of privacy, defamation and other violations of third-party rights. Pursuant to our user agreement, users agree not to use our services in a way that is illegal, obscene or may otherwise violate generally accepted codes of ethics. Our user agreement also requires that users have the right to, or the license of, the content they upload to our website and users agree to be solely liable for all legal liabilities with respect to such content. Although we have set up certain procedures to enable copyright owners to provide us with notice of alleged infringement, given the volume of content uploaded it is not possible, and we do not attempt to identify and remove all potentially infringing content uploaded by our users.
Third parties may take action and file claims against us if they believe that certain content on our site violates their copyrights or other related legal rights. We have been subject to such claims in the PRC. From the inception of our business to November 4, 2010, we have been subject to 280 copyright infringement cases in the PRC, 221 of which had been concluded and the remaining 59 cases are currently ongoing. Among the concluded cases, we have lost 91 cases, won 13 cases, settled 61 cases and 56 cases have been withdrawn by plaintiffs. The damage awards among the 91 lost cases range from RMB3,000 to RMB50,000 per infringement found, with more popular content typically giving rise to higher monetary damage awards. Although we have set up screening processes to try to filter out popular movie titles currently featured in Chinese cinema, we do not attempt to filter out all potentially infringing content uploaded by our users and, therefore, anticipate that copyright infringement claims against us in the PRC will continue to arise. Moreover, since 2005, relevant PRC government authorities have jointly launched annual campaigns specifically aimed to crack down on Internet copyright infringement and piracy, which normally last for three to four months every year. In the past, several websites engaging in serious copyright infringement and piracy were shut down by relevant government authorities during such campaigns. Given the large volume of content uploaded by our users, we do not have the ability to identify and remove all potentially infringing content in our website, and we cannot assure you that we will not receive any penalties in such campaigns. In serious cases, the operating permits of the websites engaging illegal activities may be revoked.
Furthermore, through cooperation with Tencent, we have established a substation at soso.tudou.com to allow the list of search results from Tencent’s search engine, including links to videos on third parties’ websites, to be presented on our own website. Some content found using such search engine facilities may be protected by copyright or other intellectual property rights. In China, uncertainties still exist with respect to the legal standards as well as the judicial interpretation of such standards for determining liabilities for our providing links to content on third-party websites that infringe others’ copyrights.
Additionally, although we have not previously been subject to legal actions for copyright infringement in jurisdictions other than the PRC, it is possible that we may be subject to such claims in the future. Such other jurisdictions may impose different protections for copyrights, and the claims may result in potentially larger damages awards than have been imposed in the PRC. For example, although our operations are in the PRC and our site is targeted at audiences in Asia, our site includes some English-language content and is accessible by users in the U.S. and elsewhere. There is a risk that a U.S. court may determine that it has jurisdiction over us for claims for U.S. copyrights. Although U.S. copyright laws, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 512), or the DMCA, provide safeguards from claims for monetary relief for copyright infringement for certain entities that host user-uploaded content and that comply with specified statutory requirements, and although we have recently taken additional steps in an effort to comply with the DMCA “safe habor” requirements, it is possible that a U.S. court would conclude that it has jurisdiction and that we are not eligible for the safeguards provided by the DMCA for infringement claims occurring prior to the implementation of those changes. Additionally, for claims of infringement arising after our additional efforts to comply with the DMCA safeguards, it is nonetheless possible that a U.S. court could conclude that we have not complied with all such statutory requirements to qualify for safe harbor status. Under such circumstances, it is possible that we could be subject to claims of copyright infringement in the U.S.
In addition, although our license agreements with licensors of premium licensed content require that the licensors have the legal right to license to us such content, we cannot ensure each licensor has such authorization. If any purported licensor does not actually have sufficient authorization relating to the premium licensed content or right to license a work of authorship provided to us, we may be subject to claims of copyright infringement from third parties, and we cannot ensure we can be fully indemnified by the relevant licensor for all losses we may incur from such claims.
Any such claims in the PRC, U.S., or elsewhere, regardless of their merit, could be time-consuming and costly to defend, and may result in litigation and divert management’s attention and resources. Furthermore, an adverse determination in any such litigation or proceedings to which we may become a party in the PRC, U.S. or elsewhere could cause us to pay substantial damages. For example, statutory damage awards in the U.S. can range from US$750 to US$30,000 per infringement, and if the infringement is found to be intentional, can be as high as US$150,000 per infringement. Additionally, the risk of an adverse determination in such litigation or an actual adverse determination may result in harm to our reputation or in adverse publicity. The risk of an adverse result or the actual adverse result in litigation may also require us to seek licenses from third parties, pay ongoing royalties or become subject to injunctions requiring us to remove content or take other steps to prevent infringement, each of which could prevent us from pursuing some or all of our business and result in our users and advertising customers or potential users and advertising customers deferring or limiting their use of our services, which could materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
Maintaining copyright protection controls may be costly and our business may be placed at a competitive disadvantage.
Due to the low cost of piracy in China, some online video sites provide links to and host content on their websites which may infringe the copyright rights or other rights of third parties. We have developed a digital identification system, which codes video clips based on audio and video components and can identify video clips with codes similar to those in our own in-house “black list” of content. After receiving notice from copyright owners and licensees, we will update our black list by adding notified copyrighted content, and remove any UGC matching the listed items. Our copyright policies and user agreement prohibits users from illegally uploading copyright-protected content to our website. In addition, we need to allocate a significant portion of our working capital to purchase licenses for content. However, none of the foregoing procedures can eliminate the potential risk of infringing or illegal material from being posted on our website. Our revenues from online advertising services may not be sufficient to offset the cost of acquiring legally licensed content. On the other hand, our competitors may be able to derive revenues from illegal content which requires little or no capital expenditures. Our business may be placed at a competitive disadvantage compared with our competitors that incur lower operating expenses by offering and not monitoring their websites for illegal content.
I think my favorite line is “due to the low cost of piracy in China.” A bit of an understatement especially if you consider the history of Capitol v. Thomas.